Castle Doctrine


PDA






nachosgrande
December 6, 2008, 05:03 AM
Trying to figure out the logic of the "Castle Doctrine", which is legal in my state. I'm an "Eye For an Eye" kind of guy, so this law makes no sense as I see it. Basically, if someone in my state murders someone else, they will probably get 15-20 years of jail time (realistically) and be done in the eyes of the state. However, if they break into my house, steal a pencil, and I shoot them dead (we'll call this capitol punishment), they lose their life and I'm off scott free. Therefore, in the eyes of my state, MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = DEATH PENALTY. Could someone please explain the logic in this?

If you enjoyed reading about "Castle Doctrine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gunnie
December 6, 2008, 05:15 AM
the difference is-when they are in your house at night, you don't know if they are armed. and even in the daylight, you can't read their mind to know their intentions. ALL YOU DO KNOW for sure is they aren't bothered by laws they broke to get there inside your house.

why should breaking others be a problem for them?

gunnie

biggiesmalls
December 6, 2008, 05:35 AM
the way i see it, they gave up their safety when they enter your house unwelcomed. if they're willing to risk it, be happy to oblige and save your own life and your family's... if you assume badguys are in your house just to steal a pencil then you should just throw a couple of pencils on your front yard and save everybody some time :)

bthest86
December 6, 2008, 05:38 AM
and I shoot them dead (we'll call this capitol punishment)

Call it what ever you want. That is not what it is. I'm not shooting the intruder because he is stealing my pencil, I'm shooting because he is illegally in my house doing God knows what and I'm protecting myself. That is not an execution. It is self-preservation.

biggiesmalls
December 6, 2008, 05:40 AM
MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = DEATH PENALTY. Could someone please explain the logic in this?


the lack of logic here is that murder only commands 15 years, not that theft gets death penalty, because you are assuming that you will not suffer bodily harm in a simple burglary, which you really have no way of knowing whether it is until it's too late and worse things are happening.

Shung
December 6, 2008, 05:45 AM
don't feed the troll.. (my aplogize if the question was serious)

mnrivrat
December 6, 2008, 05:45 AM
15 to 20 in the eyes of the state for murder is fair to you ? an eye for an eye man . For murder one should face the death penalty in my way of thinking.

Then there is the pencil ? I doubt anyone is going to break into your home to steal a pencil , that said , perhaps they are only there to steal something. (makes no difference what) How can you possibly know that , vs there being in you house to murder and possibly steal as well ?

And my last point is , should you face murder charges for believing they are there to do great harm, and thereby protecting yourself ?

NavyLCDR
December 6, 2008, 08:27 AM
Castle doctrines are not laws designed to preserve the right of a homeowner to protect his property (except in Texas :D). Castle doctrines are laws that preserve the rights of homeowners to protect the occupants of their homes from harm or death.

In other words, you are not shooting an intruder as punishment for theft of an item, you are shooting an intruder to stop a possible attack against your person or any other person present in your home.

qajaq59
December 6, 2008, 08:34 AM
Maybe he isn't there to steal your pencil? Could be he wants to kidnap your 5 year old daughter.
Sounds a little different that way, doesn't it?

basicblur
December 6, 2008, 08:44 AM
don't feed the troll..

Since I don't speak Swedish...:D

"Smart" thieves/murderers (an oxymoron) have been reported to break in houses and find/use a weapon in the home (kitchen/butcher knives etc) rather than bring their own weapon, in the hopes that if caught/charged, they will be charged with lesser offenses than if they had brought their own weapon.

'Course, if you catch 'em before they can do whatever they had in mind, they just broke in to steal a pencil/cigarette etc. donchaknow!

Shung
December 6, 2008, 08:46 AM
Well, not a problem if you don't speak Swedish, since I can't neither.. http://www.thehighroad.org/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

google map is your friend ;)

ps: DO NOT RELY ON CNN :banghead:

http://www.rant-here.com/drupal/CNN.jpg

rocinante
December 6, 2008, 09:37 AM
The lack of real world reality seeping into the mind of the original poster is astonishing. He has a stranger in his house? Who is he? Thief? Rapist? Murderer? Anything but a danger? Bambi? Mini Me? Tiny Tim? Stop and negotiate? Use a commanding presence and with the authority of goodness and righteousness and a stern voice order him to leave? Lets be PC and just not project any prejudgment on this "uninvited guest".

I love the label of "castle doctrine". In this illogical country where the success or failure of a concept depends on a label that one is spot on. A man's home is his castle and there he is the sovereign.

Fact is home invaders do harm and often kill the subjects of the realm. Recent example was the beautiful news reporter in Arkansas that was raped and beat to death so sadistically every bone in her face was broken.

XD Fan
December 6, 2008, 10:29 AM
An execution would be if you caught the guy two days later using your pencil and shot him in the head.

While he is in your home, you must assume that he (or she for that matter) is there to harm your person, or your family. To assume otherwise would be the heighth of irresponsibility.

Just Jim
December 6, 2008, 10:40 AM
Let's see now, he tresspasses and then breaks into your house (B&E) then steals from you (burglary) and he could shove that pencil in your eye and kill you. He dies because he is stupid enough to violate alot of laws, not for stealing a pencil.

jj

jdc1244
December 6, 2008, 10:40 AM
They gave up their safety when they enter your house unwelcome.

Correct – if someone does not want to get shot and perhaps killed, don’t break into someone’s home; very simple. The intent of the Doctrine is to act as a deterrent to would-be home invaders.

indoorsoccerfrea
December 6, 2008, 10:49 AM
eye for an eye...so with that logic you arent going to use lethal force to protect yourself...unless its already been used on you...that doesnt leave you much of a choice does it?
Castle doctrine is intended to give a protective advantage and legal support for defending yourself.

rmmoore
December 6, 2008, 10:49 AM
+1 to most of the posters on this one. If you find an intruder in your home, it would be foolhardy for you to assume that he is there to steal unless you catch him walking out with your TV in his arms. Lethal force to protect PROPERTY is not justified (in most places), unless in the instance of an auto, and the vehicle is occupied. LETHAL force is intended to protect you or a third party from imminent danger or the threat of imminent danger. If the "thief" enters my home under the cover of darkness, while it's occupied, I can safely make the claim he's not there to collect pawn shop items, and he WILL be met with deadly force under the pretext that he was there to offer someone in my home bodily harm, hence the illegal forced entry in the cover of night. Now, if I come home in broad daylight and find him in my home while it is unoccupied, that is a different circumstance altogether. You MUST, repeat MUST, be in imminent danger OR be able to articulate why you FELT you were, in order to justify deadly force.

Here in Wyoming, that's not that too difficult to do. Other places however, you need to wait until he has a knife to someone's throat before you can make the case. THANK GOD I live in a State that still believes in the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home, and their LIVES have more value than a criminal's rights. At least for the most part anyway; noone is perfect and Utopia doesn't exist.

JWarren
December 6, 2008, 10:57 AM
I find it exceedingly difficult to consider a situation where personal responsibility and consequence is not sitting FIRMLY and SOLELY on the shoulders of the person COMMITTING the crime.

I wake up at 3 AM to let my pup out to pee and I see a guy in my kitchen. Do I know if he is there to steal my Lucky Charms? Or do I know if he is there to rape and kill my wife?

I don't have to know.

I don't NEED to know why you broke into my house.

But you know what? I don't NEED to shoot you, either. At that point, I have choices that would be based upon my observances of the situation and my beliefs about what is going on.

If I am wrong in my beliefs or observations of the situation, it is STILL on your shoulders that you chose to break into my house and expose YOURSELF to that. People forget that the best way to not have this inconvienently imposed upon you is to NOT break into any houses.

Castle Docrine is NOT a license to "murder" an "innocent" person. Castle Docrine IS protection for a person that has to protect his life, his loved ones lives, and his property from people CHOOSING to potentially taking any or all of the above from them.

Castle Doctrine is a moot point the instant CRIMINALS decide to stop preying on people who are minding their own business in their own homes.

A discussion of Castle Doctrine CANNOT be had until the very real and very relevant point is conceeded that the responsibility of consequences lies squarely on the shoulders of the intruder.


There have been threads in S&T about people who are stoned or otherwise intoxicated accidently going into the wrong house. This brings up the potential for a Castle Doctrine situation where there may be post-facto indications that this wasn't an "actual" home invasion.

Well... guess what?

If you get so intoxicated that you stumble into the wrong house on occassion, then perhaps-- just perhaps-- this should have been a WAKE-UP call to get your substance abuse under control. The RIGHTS of people to not have threats and intruders in thier own homes TRUMPS the right to go through life in a drug-induced haze. And if a person DOES accidently walk into the wrong house in said drug-induced haze, who's responsibility exactly is that? Is it the responsibility of the homeowner to know that you just got high on cat-pee and are otherwise harmless? Or is it your responsibility to be able be somewhat functional in your actions?

Bad choices can make bad consequences. EVEN if those consequences are a "comedy of errors." Those "errors" are STILL the responsibility of those that are making the errors.


-- John

The Bushmaster
December 6, 2008, 11:58 AM
The "Castle Doctrine" is there to protect you from law suit from the dead intruder's relatives. The right to protect you, yours and property has always been there, but you could be sued. With the "Castle Doctrine" you are protected from law suit...

Missouri has extended the "Castle Doctrine" to your automobile too...We also no longer have to "retreat"...

Graymutt
December 6, 2008, 12:53 PM
Only have one thing to say about the Castle Law, Good Bless Texas. If some one breaks in to my house. I have no issue with the law protecting my family.

rosemont
December 6, 2008, 01:21 PM
Trying to figure out the logic

I think the logic is there already, no need to go twisting it.

wyocarp
December 6, 2008, 01:26 PM
Stay out of my house!

JR47
December 6, 2008, 01:33 PM
Actually, Castle Doctrine came about in response to ignorant politicians placing unreasonable demands upon the home owners. Requiring someone to flee from their home in the face of deadly threat, rather than to defend themselves is still in effect in some blighted areas of America. Always an after-the-fact review, it provided another layer of gray, allowing politically motivated prosecutors yet another chance at fame and votes.

In those states, unless you are under physical attack, you may not respond with lethal force. You MUST flee if there is any way to do so. That may require abandoning children or elderly, but, hey, that's not anybody's problem but yours.

MT GUNNY
December 6, 2008, 01:34 PM
By Your logic after he steels a pencil you should go to his house and steel a pencil. The only thing is Don't be Surprised if he Shoots you during your attempt.

Glockman17366
December 6, 2008, 01:37 PM
Castle Doctrine is for self defense. If a person breaks into your home, he or she has already indicated intent to do harm to you or your family.
It's your duty to prevent that harm. If the intruder is injured or killed while defending your home and family, why on earth would you consider that a death penalty?

mio
December 6, 2008, 01:39 PM
to put your concience at ease get a mediium size dog (rott, bull mastiff ect) if they break in and dog runs them off they were just there to steal something if they break in and dog doest deter them start shooting

Officers'Wife
December 6, 2008, 01:39 PM
I believe the theory is - when someone breaks into your house you are legally entitled to assume they are desparate enough to cause you or yours grave physical harm. With that assumption any action you perform after is self defense. The perp's intentions are irrelevant. Ergo:
MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = SUICIDE BY HOMEOWNER

In the real world people make choices then live with the consequences. In a castle doctrine state breaking into a house the odds are the consequence is loving Christian correction applied with a deadly weapon. They takes their chances they pays the price. Maybe it's unfair in some eyes- the shame is their parents didn't teach them to respect property.

ByAnyMeans
December 6, 2008, 02:33 PM
"In the real world people make choices then live with the consequences. In a castle doctrine state breaking into a house the odds are the consequence is loving Christian correction applied with a deadly weapon. They takes their chances they pays the price. Maybe it's unfair in some eyes- the shame is their parents didn't teach them to respect property."


+1 It's about not having to wait and see what they want, being in your house is enough to justify your belief that they can cause you and yours bodily harm. It also does'nt mean you have to use deadly force but gives you the option if needed. DON'T WANT TO BE SHOT AT DON'T COME INTO MY HOUSE.

Frank Ettin
December 6, 2008, 02:34 PM
...The perp's intention are irrelevant....
And in any case, we can never know the perp's intentions, because we can't read his mind. All we can do is infer his intentions from his actions. And basically what the various flavors of Castle Doctrines provide is that we would be reasonable to infer from certain actions that the perp manifest an intention to hurt us.

...They takes their chances they pays the price. Maybe it's unfair in some eyes- the shame is their parents didn't teach them to respect property....
Absolutely.

basicblur
December 6, 2008, 02:42 PM
Well, not a problem if you don't speak Swedish, since I can't neither.. google map is your friend

Wait a minute…you mean you’re not in North Carolina (http://www.switzerlandinn.com/)? :what:

My bad…Every time I hear a “sw” in one o’ those furrin’ country names, I automatically think Sweden/Bjorn Borg-comes from a misspent youth watching too much tennis!

Let me just cruise on over to Google and see ‘zactly what language Switzerland does speak…HOLY COW-4 official languages?

I, I, I…..just can’t talk to you any more! :scrutiny:

Hey, gimmee a break! It was early morning, I had just gotten up, and hadn’t had my morning cup of Switzerland chocolate…or is that Swiss chocolate?

Well now you’ve just gone and gotten me completely cornfused! :banghead:

mljdeckard
December 6, 2008, 03:38 PM
I am in control of my home, and everyone in it. This is necessary to preserve the safety of my children.

If someone violates this sanctity, they have put me in a position where I must instantly discern what their intentions are. Unfortunately, if they are a meth head looking for an xbox to pawn to get their next $40 fix, they are unstable enough to do anything if they are discovered, and may well do something violent to ANYONE in my house. There is no reasonable way I can know this, therefore the law gives me the benefit of the doubt. If someone enters my home, either by violence or by stealth, with the intent to commit a felony, they get a lead salad. They are presumed to be desperate, violent, and dangerous. IF, and ONLY if, their eyes instantly show surrender, and they immediately comply when I tell them face down on the floor, hands behind their head, DO NOT MOVE, I won't act to stop their actions until the police arrive. If they deviate, I must act.

JoeSlomo
December 6, 2008, 04:06 PM
Trying to figure out the logic of the "Castle Doctrine", which is legal in my state. I'm an "Eye For an Eye" kind of guy, so this law makes no sense as I see it. Basically, if someone in my state murders someone else, they will probably get 15-20 years of jail time (realistically) and be done in the eyes of the state. However, if they break into my house, steal a pencil, and I shoot them dead (we'll call this capitol punishment), they lose their life and I'm off scott free. Therefore, in the eyes of my state, MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = DEATH PENALTY. Could someone please explain the logic in this?

Study how the state defines "murder" and "manslaughter" and their varying degree's and you will have a better understanding of the castle doctrine, and it's intent.

IMO, castle doctrine is there to protect the law abiding citizen, in fear of great bodily harm or death, from felons with unknown intent.

JoeFish
December 6, 2008, 04:26 PM
IF, and ONLY if, their eyes instantly show surrender, and they immediately comply when I tell them face down on the floor, hands behind their head, DO NOT MOVE, I won't act to stop their actions until the police arrive. If they deviate, I must act.

This is an excellent point. Just because you have the right to shoot an intruder does NOT mean that you are required to give them three in the head. A command to desist while your partner calls the police, or a disabling shot, to the leg, maybe, if you feel comfortable doing so, can be applied before taking this person's life.

That said, if it's in the dark and they're pointing something at me (whether it's a gun or a banana), and I'm going to take him or her down.

Washington- where I'm about to move- is a "Stand your ground" state, which takes many cues from Castle Doctrine, and I'm pretty glad about it. In the age of criminals with firearms, "duty to retreat" seems a little outdated.

JWarren
December 6, 2008, 04:32 PM
A command to desist while your partner calls the police, or a disabling shot, to the leg, maybe, if you feel comfortable doing so, can be applied before taking this person's life.


If you EVER pull the trigger, you should be aiming for COM. The logic often used when considering non-lethal placement is that if you had the ability to place your shots as to not be lethal, you were not in a position where deadly force was justified.

Shooting a guy in the leg is HORRIBLE advice to give anyone and invites costly legal proceedings-- likely in civil AND criminal court.


I wouldn't do that in the favorable legal environment of Mississippi. You probably should re-think that in SoCal.


-- John

jad0110
December 6, 2008, 04:45 PM
Quote:
A command to desist while your partner calls the police, or a disabling shot, to the leg, maybe, if you feel comfortable doing so, can be applied before taking this person's life.

If you EVER pull the trigger, you should be aiming for COM. The logic often used when considering non-lethal placement is that if you had the ability to place your shots as to not be lethal, you were not in a position where deadly force was justified.

Shooting a guy in the leg is HORRIBLE advice to give anyone and invites costly legal proceedings-- likely in civil AND criminal court.

I wouldn't do that in the favorable legal environment of Mississippi. You probably should re-think that in SoCal.

Emphasis added. This would also include drawing your weapon in many states. In North Carolina, merely drawing your weapon can be legally considered "assault with a deadly weapon" unless use of lethal force is justified. Therefore, in NC's CCW classes we are basically told that you only draw your weapon if lethal force is justified and you are ready to employ it.

Not to mention that leg shots can be lethal too. Severing the femoral arterey can result in death very rapidly.

Loomis
December 6, 2008, 04:54 PM
Shoot him to save your life, not to save your pencil. shoot him to stop him from harming you, not to kill him. If he dies later, oh well, that's his fault not yours.

You should never consciously choose to end another person's life because he stole your pencil. That would be stupid, likely illegal, and immoral.

You stated you believe in "eye for an eye". Would you take someone's eye if they cut off your hangnail? Do you think that phrase from the bible was put there to give you permission to do such a thing?

JWarren
December 6, 2008, 04:59 PM
Before this moves too far down one road or the other, I think it would us well to be reminded that Defense of Property IS allowed in many states.

Whether you chose to defend property is a function of the jurisdiction you live in as well as your own personal code of ethics.


-- John

ByAnyMeans
December 6, 2008, 05:47 PM
Good point John. I'm not saying I would shoot someone if I see them running out of my house with my TV, but just becuase they have your TV does'nt mean thye don't want something else as well.


People have asked me " Is shooting someone worth saving your TV" and I usually reply "you should ask the robber if getting shot is worth stealing a TV".

Graymutt
December 6, 2008, 05:48 PM
Quote:
"A command to desist while your partner calls the police, or a disabling shot, to the leg, maybe, if you feel comfortable doing so, can be applied before taking this person's life. "

Man, you are asking to be beaten, shot or worse. You dont know what the criminal that is in you house is planning, or has. Not to mention the court cost, and other expenses that might creep up. I will not take chances with my family or my life. The castle laws gives a peace of mind, that what you have to do, will be accepted.

7.62X25mm
December 6, 2008, 05:51 PM
The law gives you the clear option in all situations of not trespassing.

armoredman
December 6, 2008, 05:59 PM
Has the OP revisited this thread at all?

TRGRHPY
December 6, 2008, 06:12 PM
You know, if you don't want to give him the death penalty by your hands, then at least imprison him in your basement for 1 1/2 to 5 years with possibility of parole in 2 1/3 years. :evil: Hell, I wouldn't have to do dishes for quite awhile.

withdrawn34
December 6, 2008, 06:30 PM
There is a general misconception that the Castle Doctrine is about vigiliantism and basically "the penalty for tresspassing is DEATH."

While some people, even supporters, believe this, this is not really the intent of the castle doctrine.

When someone breaks into your house, regardless of the time, are you going to sit him down with a cup of tea and ask him gently if he is armed? if so, with what? What are his intentions? Would he like some biscuits with his tea?

No, you don't know and his intentions are not going to be good. If he is going to run, let him run. Fine. The Castle doctrine, as it is in most states, doesn't let you shoot a fleeing intruder/attacker. There's also no reason you should as he/she is no longer a threat.

I have a feeling you have never had anyone invade your home while you were in it. You don't stick around to find out whether he is armed... you generally either freeze and/or run to somewhere, unless you are armed. At that point you are in fear of your life and there's a pretty damned good chance he is armed and intends to do you harm.

If he doesn't intent to do you harm, then he would have run at the first sign that the house is occupied. But he's coming into the house... he's not just there to say hi. Defend yourself, stay safe.

Would you fault a police officer for firing on a suspect who suddenly reached into his waistband and turned around very quickly towards police? Do you know, for sure, what he is pulling out? History tells us it is probably not a long stem rose. There's an presumption that as a society we consider reasonable. The castle doctrine is simply an extension of a similar line of reasoning.

Of course, you are under no obligation to use deadly force, ever. It is always your choice. So if you are against killing someone who is an immediate danger to your life, that is your choice. This law doesn't force anyone to do anything.

I am not trying to insult you, but keeping a firearm for self-defense must involve a prior, serious thought session and final decision that if someone is a threat to your life, you are willing to take human life in that one case. If you cannot kill in this case, then a firearm is not for you. Call 911, put bigger locks on your bedroom door that you will hopefully have a chance to run to and hope the guy runs away when he hears you calling 911. Seriously, that is all you can do with no means to defend yourself. Sometimes it does actually work, but there's no reason you can't do that holding a shotgun at the bedroom door.

basicblur
December 6, 2008, 06:41 PM
Has the OP revisited this thread at all?

Not that I've seen.
I think Shung had it right when he advised not to feed the troll!

Kleanbore
December 6, 2008, 07:21 PM
Paul34 nailed it: There is a general misconception that the Castle Doctrine is about vigiliantism and basically "the penalty for tresspassing is DEATH."

There are a lot of misconceptions about the castle doctrine. Much of this is the result of unfavorable publicity from the antigun media.

I have read legal opinions that even the most controversial castle laws really didn't change things very much. They codified the absence of a duty to retreat from one's dwelling or auto (in many states) and affirmed that the fact of breaking and entering a dwelling provides a basis (in many states, but not all) for a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary. Some also provide protection against civil suits when deadly force is justified under criminal law. All good, and not what you read in the media, I'm afraid.

The laws do vary.

In Texas, for the fact of entry alone to justify the use of deadly force, the entry must be unlawful and with force. In Colorado, where the media have described the castle law as the "make my day" law, deadly force is not permitted unless (1) the entry is knowing and criminal (and by the way, that introduces the intruder's state of mind and motive into the equation) and (2) the person using force has a reasonable belief that the intruder intends to commit a serious crime.

As far as defense of property is concerned, one often reads that deadly force may be used to prevent robbery, in addition to murder, kidnapping, rape, etc. That's not burglary or picking your pocket, or picking up a lap-top on the way out. It involves force or threat of force to harm you. Here's the Texas law on robbery:

§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or
threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily
injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree.
(c) In this section, "disabled person" means an individual
with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is
substantially unable to protect himself from harm.

Laws vary a great deal from state to state. In Missouri there is no reference to forceful entry. Know your state laws; don't beleve what the media say about castle laws; and do not act in accordance with what the media say you are permitted to do.

rbernie
December 6, 2008, 07:44 PM
Has the OP revisited this thread at all?Not so much, altho he is currently logged in and active.

nachosgrande
December 6, 2008, 07:49 PM
No, I've revisited. Just didn't want to post much else because on this topic everyone seems to think I'm an idiot. They might even be right, I should have posted this in "Legal" to begin with.

To refine my OP, my state does allow for protection of property. And I never said 15-20 years for murder was fair, I just said that's what it is.

All people are different. I just know personally that I'm not emotionally strong enough to kill someone I caught stealing, legal or not. I would dwell on it every day for the rest of my life wondering what their true intentions were.

The way I see it, the percentage of murderers who are thieves is probably 100%, but the percentage of thieves who are murderers is probably closer to 5%.

gym
December 6, 2008, 07:51 PM
That was my last pencil, bang. That would have made a good Clint eastwood line. Your supposed feel that your life is threatned, remember,you were in fear of your life or those around you, if you aren't then just go back to sleep

withdrawn34
December 6, 2008, 07:56 PM
Nacho, let me ask you this. Most criminals, if they break into a house, are usually looking to take something. Not just kill the inhabitants and leave. Generally, the murder accompanies the theft.

I am curious to know how you plan to ask an intruder who you catch stealing say, a TV, whether he just wants the TV or in the panic of being caught, turn around immediately an come at you with a knife, crowbar, or gun. Or maybe, he's much bigger than you and plans to beat you to death. How do you know?

Generally, you have an option of saying something to the effect of "FREEZE" or "STOP!" If they don't comply immediately then its not because they are confused!

I think the point is, use common sense. If you feel it is reasonable to be in fear of your life, then do so and be prepared to defend your actions. I feel like people are afraid to trust themselves with the "major" responsibility of common sense. Its your house, someone has broken in. Act appropriately. Don't go overboard - just act appropriately.

If you know, for sure, that someone is JUST stealing your pencil and is taking off, then of course, don't shoot (of course, in reality, this scenario is implausible; but just for the sake of argument I put it here). That's common sense, wouldn't you say? The castle doctrine doesn't *obligate* you to shoot in any circumstance. Just gives you the option. It is up to YOU to exercise that option wisely and appropriately.

Read up at places like here, go through scenarios in your head, become familiar with the law, think about what you are comfortble with morally and ethically, and then just trust yourself that you'll do the right thing when the time comes.

nachosgrande
December 6, 2008, 08:14 PM
Paul34,

My problem is probably a poor knowledge of human psychology. I have a very difficult time thinking that someone is capable of murder. I've never worked in law enforcement or any field that you come into contact with this sort of people on a day to day basis, or ever had any experience with someone capable of committing theft, much less murder, so it's difficult for me to relate.

My thinking is that if you catch someone stealing your TV, they will probably make a run for the door. What could they gain from attacking a homeowner with a gun? Let's be honest, which of you here would actually shoot an intruder in the back that was running away from your home after an attempted theft?

gym,

That Clint line was the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Kinda reminded me of a Family Guy skit.

Bozo
December 6, 2008, 08:19 PM
So, Nacho, when are you emotionally strong enough to pull the trigger on someone? It is a tough call for everyone. So if and when you see someone in your house late in the night, what would you do? what are your thoughts? Do you try and protect your wife? Do you call 911 and wait for their response? Interesting questions a lot of people can not answer till it happens.

jocko
December 6, 2008, 08:50 PM
IMO is a good thing, just in Indiana it doesnt just mean in your home or on your property. If you feel a need to defend yourslef in Indiana, yo have that right to now do so.

Been in effect now for over a year and I have not read of one incident where it was used and the person was held liable for defending himself.

Break in steal my pencils, one of us will leave on a stretcher, no other way to say it. If your stupid enough to break in and steal my pencils, you should be taken out on a stretcher.. DAMN YOU JUST DON'T BELONG IN SOMEONE'S HOME...

basicblur
December 6, 2008, 09:16 PM
There seems to be some confusion regarding the requirement that you retreat-I think most places required you safely retreat? That being the case, a decent lawyer should be able to prove that there are damn few times when you can safely retreat.

If he’s 21 feet away and holding a knife, conventional wisdom (and demonstrations) show he can be on you PDQ. That being said, how are you going to safely retreat?
Gonna turn and run? (turning your back on an intruder sure ain’t safe).
You going to backpeddle away? (he can run forward faster than you can backpeddle-still not safe).
Well, you get the idea?

Looks to me like if you had/have a decent lawyer, the Castle Doctrine is going to make little/no difference.
Mebbe all the Castle Doctrine really does is protect you in case you’re unlucky enough to get an incompetent lawyer?

mljdeckard
December 6, 2008, 09:16 PM
When you shoot someone in your home, you are not shooting them for stealing. You are preventing them from doing you harm. That they also might be there to steal is incidental.

There is no shoot to wound. There is no shoot to kill. There is acting with all available means to stop the actions who is going to do you harm. If you aren't sure someone is going to do you harm, you are not legally allowed to wound them any more than you are allowed to kill them.

LightningJoe
December 6, 2008, 09:36 PM
The state will impose less than the death penalty for murder unless the crime is somehow aggravated. A gun used to protect your home, on the other hand, may inflict a mortal injury. Inflicting that injury, though, isn't punishment; it's an act of self-defense. This is so transparently obvious that it is difficult to imagine an intellectually honest person who didn't readily apprehend that critical difference.

tpaw
December 6, 2008, 10:50 PM
MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = DEATH PENALTY. Could someone please explain the logic in this?

The minor theft is insignificant. They broke into your house, that's the felony crime. The mere fact that they broke in is what's important. The crime has been committed. Nothing needs to be stolen for you to use deadly force.

jad0110
December 6, 2008, 11:34 PM
My thinking is that if you catch someone stealing your TV, they will probably make a run for the door. What could they gain from attacking a homeowner with a gun? Let's be honest, which of you here would actually shoot an intruder in the back that was running away from your home after an attempted theft?

Statistically, yes, most thugs are going to flee without a shot being fired. But not all, it is those nut cases we must always be prepared for. And they do exist.

I would also say that you are looking at it too logically. To you and I, yes, it makes no sense to attack a person who has the drop on us with say, a 12 gauge shotgun. But put yourself in their shoes. Why in the heck would you ever go into someone's home forceably in the first place? To steal a pencil, nonetheless :D . The answer is simply because they either don't care or are incredibly stupid. Maybe both. As others have said, it is reasonable to assume they are their to do you harm until you have verified otherwise, IMO.

As for shooting an intruder who is already fleeing, no, probably not. I'd be more concerned about his fellow thugs who may still be lurking that pose a greater threat.

rbernie
December 6, 2008, 11:46 PM
ever had any experience with someone capable of committing theft, much less murder, so it's difficult for me to relate.Perhaps you should ask some cops for their view on this.

I have been around a few Bad People. Most of them were cowards that favored non-confrontational crimes; not the kind that kick in back doors so much. The ones that *did* kick in back doors were almost universally The Bad People that scared me. Breaking into someone's house is a pretty scary thing to do, and I consider it to be a personality threshold of sorts.

Of the Bad Guys that kick in back doors to steal stuff/Be Bad People, it's been my impression that the smart/risk adverse ones break in during the day to try and avoid confrontation. They want loot, plain and simple. They tend to be either yoots looking for easy swag to fence, or adults that actually earn their living by stealin' stuff. The ones that break in at night/weekends are either stupid beyond belief (looking for a crime of opportunity and unaware that someone's likely home), really desperate and willing to accept the risk of a confrontation, or really are unafraid of the potential consequences. Either of those three mindsets render them a significant threat, in my opinion - much more of a threat than the professional day thief.

Finally, you have the ones that break in for something other than loot. It sounds silly, but there is a subset of the human population that really does this sort of thing.

The problem is that when you confront the shadowy figure in the darkened hallway, you don't know WHICH of these personalities you're facing. You also have virtually NO time in which to ponder this, or ask the intruder probing questions seeking their true intent.

I just know personally that I'm not emotionally strong enough to kill someone I caught stealing, legal or not. I would dwell on it every day for the rest of my life wondering what their true intentions were.I am a father and a husband. Anyone that has entered my house has done so by breaking through a locked door or window. They have already demonstrated that they really intend to be there, and that they know that they are unwelcome. If my wife/children are present in the house, I have to presume that they are potential victims and that the intruder is a predator. I will treat the intruder as someone who wants to hurt my family, simply because choosing to presume a lesser intent significantly exposes my family to an avoidable risk.

I would much rather spend my remaining days dwelling on the intent of the deceased intruder than dwelling on how I could have prevented a loved one from being predated upon by that intruder.

TRGRHPY
December 7, 2008, 02:25 AM
My problem is probably a poor knowledge of human psychology. I have a very difficult time thinking that someone is capable of murder. I've never worked in law enforcement or any field that you come into contact with this sort of people on a day to day basis, or ever had any experience with someone capable of committing theft, much less murder, so it's difficult for me to relate.


A basic rule to go by is that burglars, those who want property only, avoid people. If someone breaks into a home knowing that people are there, then they plan on hurting or killing someone. The person who only wants the property for financial gain, will do so when nobody is there. So if you are at home when someone breaks in, chances are that they are willing to hurt you or your family. Also, if someone breaks in when the home is occupied, they very well might not be there for propery theft and may be there for the sole intent of committing a violent crime. To assume that they are there only to steal property is dangerous.

I look at it this way, if someone is willing to break into my home while my children and I are there, I am willing to shoot first and ask questions later. I'm simply not risking our safety to be diplomatic. Being on a second story with only one staircase down, for all intents and purposes, eliminates escaping. And why should I have to escape my own home anyway?

moi_self26
December 7, 2008, 02:56 AM
bah, nevermind

rmmoore
December 7, 2008, 03:06 AM
You shoot to STOP THE THREAT!!!! If, as a result of that, the offender dies, so be it. As someone else stated, just because you draw your firearm doesn't mean you have to use it, only that you had better be PREPARED to use it, and that use of deadly force was necessary to prevent his unlawful use of deadly force or his presumed use thereof (ever hear of the "reasonable man" theory). Further, warning shots and non-lethal shots are not recommended, again as someone already stated, due to the premise that if lethal force was not necessary (ie. to protect life by potentially taking a life), then lethal force was NOT justified to begin with (whether an injuring wound or not, the use of a gun WAS deadly force). If you force me to draw a firearm to defend myself or a third party, and then force me to shoot you, well, you can bet that my shots will be Center Of Mass, not wounding or warning shots.

nachosgrande
December 7, 2008, 03:36 AM
Does anyone know of a book I might be able to get my hands on that would give me the knowledge to differentiate between an idiot and a true threat in the heat of the moment? I'm being serious here.

I may not have any experience with bad guys, but I do have quite a bit of experience with idiots. Anybody here that says different would be lying. Idiots are everywhere. Some of my friends and family, for example, are idiots. In college, my cousin was home for the holidays and got so drunk one night that he went home to the neighbors house (which happened to be unlocked that night, fairly common in my area), thinking it was his, and fell asleep on the floor of the master bedroom.

I'd like to be able to spare such idiots, if they happen upon my home if I forget to lock the door.

ChCx2744
December 7, 2008, 04:39 AM
When a person(s) enters your home (FORCED OR NON-FORCED) without your consent or the consent of any of the occupants (Whether or not they are legal lease-holders/owners), here in Georgia it is automatically considered a Felony Burglary. With that said, Burglary covers a wide spectrum. When one commits Burglary, (s)he enters a private dwelling with the INTENT to commit a FELONY, regardless of personal motive. The act of entering the incident location without permission by itself can be VERY EASILY articulated before a judge and jury as being a immenent threat on human life. Bottom line? If someone enters your home without your permission (whether or not you are present when they do so, see them entering or not, if they forced themselves in or not, during the day or not, etc) you will have considerable leeway in using appropriate *DEADLY* force.

Taken directly from information provided to me by my brass superiors

Kleanbore
December 7, 2008, 11:06 AM
From basicblur: There seems to be some confusion regarding the requirement that you retreat-I think most places required you safely retreat?

That's on point. Wording varies, but in general you must retreat unless safe retreat is impossible, except in castle law situations...


That being the case, a decent lawyer should be able to prove that there are damn few times when you can safely retreat.

Don't bank on that. Too many cases indicate otherwise.

Some states require you to leave your dwelling unless the intruder blocks your way, and that that has brought about the passage of castle laws that remove that duty.

Where I live, unless one is inside his dwelling, tent, or automobile, the duty to retreat remains. You would have to explain to the prosecutor why the avenue of safe retreat was not available to you, and for the use of deadly force to be judged to have been justified, the jury is going to have to agree.

Now, if you are elderly, have a bad knee, use a wheelchair, walker or crutches, one would think your case would be pretty sound.

If you attempt to retreat and are pursued I should think the attempt would suffice.

The outcome is going to depend entirely on the situation.

Do not rely on any of this as legal advice.

From ChCx2744:

When a person(s) enters your home (FORCED OR NON-FORCED) without your consent or the consent of any of the occupants (Whether or not they are legal lease-holders/owners), here in Georgia it is automatically considered a Felony Burglary.

That contradicts this from a Georgia law firm:

If you enter any of these places without the owner's authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft in that place, you've committed the crime of Burglary.

If you simply enter someone's house without their authority and you did not commit a theft or felony, at worst you are guilty of criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor.


http://www.georgiadefenders.com/theft.burglary.htm

hoosier8
December 7, 2008, 11:16 AM
No, I've revisited. Just didn't want to post much else because on this topic everyone seems to think I'm an idiot. They might even be right, I should have posted this in "Legal" to begin with.

To refine my OP, my state does allow for protection of property. And I never said 15-20 years for murder was fair, I just said that's what it is.

All people are different. I just know personally that I'm not emotionally strong enough to kill someone I caught stealing, legal or not. I would dwell on it every day for the rest of my life wondering what their true intentions were.

The way I see it, the percentage of murderers who are thieves is probably 100%, but the percentage of thieves who are murderers is probably closer to 5%.

I understand your feelings on this. I have always lived by the rule that "all life is sacred" but at times we must decide to take life for survival, whether to eat or to defend ourselves. I have a shotgun and a 45 handy near my bed. If I heard someone in the house, I would arm myself first, call police second if I have time, then announce my intentions as most robberies are just that, theft. Most robbers do not want to get shot. If I could determine they were unarmed I would hold them for the police, if I could not determine and thought my life or my families life was in danger, I would fire without hesitation and live with the consequences. Most defensive actions using weapons are in private residences during a home invasion (that is what it is, an invasion).

I would read anything by Massad Ayoob.

http://ayoob.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=Ayoob&Category_Code=AMAB

ServiceSoon
December 7, 2008, 11:30 AM
Does anyone know of a book I might be able to get my hands on that would give me the knowledge to differentiate between an idiot and a true threat in the heat of the moment? I'm being serious here.

I may not have any experience with bad guys, but I do have quite a bit of experience with idiots. Anybody here that says different would be lying. Idiots are everywhere. Some of my friends and family, for example, are idiots. In college, my cousin was home for the holidays and got so drunk one night that he went home to the neighbors house (which happened to be unlocked that night, fairly common in my area), thinking it was his, and fell asleep on the floor of the master bedroom.

I'd like to be able to spare such idiots, if they happen upon my home if I forget to lock the door.This law should never be used as a shoot first ask questions later excuse. I hope nobody is going to open fire because they heard a bump in the night. The purpose of the law is to empower the person who isn't breaking the law and give them legal choices to deal with somebody who is breaking the law. You don't need a book. Just use common sense and remember the human condition. BTW, finish reading the complete eye for an eye scripture and remember an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

Graymutt
December 7, 2008, 12:52 PM
Nachos, it would be nice to beleive that someone would not do you harm, or you family harm. But the reality of the situation is that if someone is breaking in your home, and then you truely DO NOT know what they are going to do. If you want a stark reality check, check out the average response time for the police department where you live. The average for where I live is a little over 5 mins, think about it. Act like you dial 911, then sit and think of things that could happen for five mins. use a stop watch. You will have a different point of view. By the way this is how I changed my wifes view on things.

kentucky bucky
December 7, 2008, 01:04 PM
If you think home invasion, for whatever reason is okee dokee, then by all means don't shoot the intruder. Maybe with some luck they are only there to steal a few things and not to rape and /or murder you and your family. Myself, if some thug invades my house I'm duty bound to take whatever means to defend my family. It is a God given RIGHT to defend yourself......Castle Doctrine or no Castle Doctrine.

Kleanbore
December 7, 2008, 01:12 PM
From Graymutt: But the reality of the situation is that if someone is breaking in your home, and then you truely DO NOT know what they are going to do.

True, and you have to be prepared for the worst.

They may be under the impression that no one is home. I once had someone try to open my apartment door with a credit card immediately after my wife left for a class. I had my 9MM ready, but a neighbor threw the guy off the fire escape before he got in.

Maybe a loud challenge before they get in would be a good idea. But I would sure as heck be ready for the worst.

If you want a stark reality check, check out the average response time for the police department where you live. The average for where I live is a little over 5 mins, think about it. Act like you dial 911, then set and think of things that could happen for five mins. use a stop watch. You will have a different point of view.

Yep, you're on your own. That's good advice for anyone who has not yet come to that conclusion!

I don't have a lot of data on this, but it seems to me that a lot of recorded 911 calls conclude either with shots fired at the invader or with the phone going dead when the invader makes a violent attack. Any observations on this?

Jeff F
December 7, 2008, 01:20 PM
You know, a pencil can be a very deadly weapon.

mljdeckard
December 7, 2008, 02:18 PM
Kleanbore- In Utah, the law reads that if you "enter a home or dwelling either by violence or by stealth with the INTENT to commit a felony", deadly force is allowed. You don't have to actually go through with it. And current precedent allows one to discern intent from the fact that they entered by violence or by stealth. If they sneak in or kick in the door, how can their intent not be felonious?

And I could care less what a 'lawfirm' posts on the internet as law, unless the 'lawfirm' is the Georgia attorney general.

Kleanbore
December 7, 2008, 02:21 PM
From kentucky bucky: If you think home invasion, for whatever reason is okee dokee, then by all means don't shoot the intruder. Maybe with some luck they are only there to steal a few things and not to rape and /or murder you and your family. Myself, if some thug invades my house I'm duty bound to take whatever means to defend my family. It is a God given RIGHT to defend yourself..

I think one needs to understand what is meant by "home invasion". That varies from state to state:

Here's one definition:

Definition of Home Invasion. In Illinois, a person commits the offense of home invasion when he, not being a police officer acting in the line of duty, without authority, knowingly enters the dwelling place of another [(when) (and remains in such dwelling place until)] he knows or has reason to know that one or more persons is present, and [1] while armed with a dangerous weapon he uses force or threatens the imminent use of force upon any person within the dwelling place, whether or not injury occurs. [or] [2] intentionally causes any injury to any person within the dwelling place. 11.53 - Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions-Criminal 4th Edition.

That definition includes threatening the imminent use of force upon a person, not just coming in to "steal a few things." It's something other than than someone coming in through an unlocked door, possibly entering the wrong house, and turning to leave upon encountering you or discovering the mistake.

So--if the intruder has threatened you in one way or the other and does not cease and desist, you would seem to have no reasonable alternative but to shoot (lay opinion). But maybe not in Illinois--there is reportedly no explicit statement that you have no requirement to escape should safe escape be possible. Not good--many other states have eliminated that problem.

If he ceases and backs away, what you may be permitted to do under criminal law is something a lawyer in your state will have to advise.

But what you may do and what you have to do may be two different things. You shoot; your shooting is judged to have been justified, at whatever expense and inconvenience to you; and there may be someone in the perp's family who cannot accept the judgment who will want revenge on you and yours. I would choose to avoid that risk when possible. Even without that risk, I don't like the idea of shooting someone if there is any reasonable alternative that does not put me or mine in imminent danger.

.....Castle Doctrine or no Castle Doctrine


Let's reflect on that for a moment. Where I live and in some other states, the Castle Law shields me from civil liability if my shooting proves to have been justified under criminal law. If you don't have that shield, you may find you have fired the must expensive bullet you have ever imagined. And remember, the threshold for proof for the plaintiff drops from beyond reasonable doubt to by the preponderance of the evidence.

So what's the situation in Kentucky?

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/080.PDf

This would appear to be the operative part:

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon
another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only
when the defendant believes that the person against whom
such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling
otherwise than under a claim of right to its
possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary,
robbery, or other felony involving the use of force,
or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to
KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a
dwelling or other building in his possession.


(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person
is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Evidence of reasonable belief, etc. is further defined here:

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/503-00/055.PDF

Excerpts:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of
imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself
or herself or another when using defensive force that is
intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm
to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used
was in the process of unlawfully [U]and forcibly
entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a
dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that
person had removed or was attempting to remove
another against that person's will from the
dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had
reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible
entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or
had occurred.

Seems to bring in the requirement that entry be forcible for the fact of entry alone to justify the use of deadly force.

What I don't see is anything regarding protection against civil suits. Maybe someone else has knowledge about that aspect.

So--you do what you have to do. Let's hope you are never faced with the need to shoot.

Kleanbore
December 7, 2008, 03:05 PM
From mljdeckard: Kleanbore- In Utah, the law reads that if you "enter a home or dwelling either by violence or by stealth with the INTENT to commit a felony", deadly force is allowed. You don't have to actually go through with it. And current precedent allows one to discern intent from the fact that they entered by violence or by stealth.

Thanks. Interesting. I think intent is adequate just about anywhere, but this eliminates the requirement that the entry be forcible.

If they sneak in or kick in the door, how can their intent not be felonious?

Kick in? Hard to imagine.

Sneak in? How about coming home to the wrong house after curfew. It has happened.

But even breaking in may not always be felonious. I was awakened one night 35 years ago by my dog and found a man breaking into the unoccupied house next door through a basement window. I stupidly did not call the police, but instead called out to the man. He said he was my new neighbor, that his wife had just given birth, and that the front door lock wouldn't work. I bought the story and it turned out to be true. By the way, he fixed the lock but it never worked very well.

Of course, even if he had been a criminal, I would not have been justified in using deadly force, as I was not occupying the house, even under the common law in effect at the time.

And I could care less what a 'lawfirm' posts on the internet as law, unless the 'lawfirm' is the Georgia attorney general.

I'm OK with what's in an ad from a licensed law firm.

What's the situation on statutory protection from civil liability in Utah?

Cyborg
December 7, 2008, 03:35 PM
I work armed. I have even drawn my sidearm on duty though, thankfully, I have never discharged it except at the range. I do not work armed to kill anyone. I have no desire to end anyone's life. I do desire to stop badguys from doing bad things. I bought pistols chambered for .40S&W because I was reliably told that the .40 represents a good compromise between recoil and STOPPING POWER. I just want to stop them. I WILL admit, however that I do not believe that I would lose much sleep if it turned out that I had stopped them permanently.

I learned in BLE that burglars are some of the most dangerous criminals. If they will enter a home at night with people present, they will not scruple to kill/seriously injure the occupants. I also learned that the first thing to go when the SHTF is fine motor control. COM is the ONLY place to aim if you are to have any chance of hitting - and stopping - the burglar.

Kleanbore, you did not look at the appropriate part of the Texas Penal Code. Chapter 9 is the part of the TPC that authorizes use of force. It covers all uses of force by everyone including LEOs, parents, teachers and suchlike.

Sec. 9.02. JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE. It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.(please note that Ch9 doesn't keep you from being prosecuted only that it is a defense if you ARE prosecuted. You still have to convince a jury. - C)

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person. (you don't have carte blanch even in Texas - C)

Sec. 9.06. CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.(just because the DA doesn't come after you doesn't mean some ambulance chaser cannot - C)

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property;.(this is why I can guard someone's property - C)
or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.
Subchapter E covers use of force by LEOs. Subchapter F covers "Special Relationships" such as Parent-Chile, Educator-Student and Guardian-Incompetent. Without subchapter F parents could not even call their children down since voice is a level of force. Without subchapter E LEOs would not even be able to come on the scene since presence is the lowers level of force.

Anybody in Texas who wants to carry had better be REALLY frakking familiar with TPC chapter 9.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyborg
I apologize for the length of this post but there are WWWWWAAAAAAYYYYY too many people spouting nonsense about Texas law.

Kleanbore
December 7, 2008, 04:03 PM
From Cyborg: Kleanbore, you did not look at the appropriate part of the Texas Penal Code. Chapter 9 is the part of the TPC that authorizes use of force. It covers all uses of force by everyone including LEOs, parents, teachers and suchlike.

Actually, I did post the part I wanted to point out, but thanks for expanding.

I'm familiar with Chapter 9, but I wanted to point out the meaning of "robbery" as used in 9.31 (1) C ("was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery").

Robbery is something more than lifting a purse from behind a bar-stool, and a lot of people are not sensitive to the distinction. That was my point. Sorry if I was not clear.

The part about protecting property at night was not, in my mind, germane to the discussion.

Anybody in Texas who wants to carry had better be REALLY frakking familiar with TPC chapter 9.

I'll see you on that and raise you one. Anyone who wants to carry or otherwise use a deadly weapon anywhere had darn well better know the laws in effect in that place--and pretty darn thoroughly!

Cyborg
December 7, 2008, 04:31 PM
At SAC I was taught that the difference between theft and robbery is whether or not force is used. If someone lifts a purse from behind a bar-stool, that is theft. If they use force to yank it away from the woman who is carying it, that is robbery. In Texas there is no longer such a thing as "shoplifting". There is only theft - the severity is determined only by the value of the property taken - PLUS the victim. If you steal from a Senior or a person physically or mentally disabled, the severity is increased by one level. That means that in 8 years any theft from me will be arrestable (i.e. B misdemeanor or higher) and if you steal $500 from me you will have committed a felony. Steal $1,500 from me after Aug of 2016 and you will be looking at not more than 10 years and not less than 2 years in prison. 'Course since I get more afraid for my life as the years go by, you might not live to make it to trial. ;)

And kleanbore, you are dead on about local laws. There is so much variance from state to state and even from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you had FRELLING well be knowledgable about the legal climate where you are - WHEREVER you are!

Final note: A distant cousin of mine who is an Attorney, told me once that if I hear a burglar in the house to be sure and wait until he crosses the threshold into my bedroom. That way there is no doubt about his intent. Remember 9.06.

Kleanbore
December 7, 2008, 07:21 PM
From Cyborg: At SAC I was taught that the difference between theft and robbery is whether or not force is used. If someone lifts a purse from behind a bar-stool, that is theft. If they use force to yank it away from the woman who is carying it, that is robbery.

And kleanbore, you are dead on about local laws. There is so much variance from state to state and even from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, you had FRELLING well be knowledgable about the legal climate where you are - WHEREVER you are!

A distant cousin of mine who is an Attorney, told me once that if I hear a burglar in the house to be sure and wait until he crosses the threshold into my bedroom. That way there is no doubt about his intent. Remember 9.06.

Cyborg, you obviously know what you are talking about.

I took CCW training last summer. Here are some things that I had not known:


The basic prerequistes for the use of deadly force outside the home (A, O, J, P; Tueller drill distance criterion.)
That I cannot detain a perp (without entering into the risky world of citizens arrest)
The provisons of our castle law (that's the subject of all this, of course)
That I cannot use my gun to protect property here
That my dog is considered property
That producing the weapon in a situation in which the use of deadly force is not justified can get me into serious trouble from both the criminal and civil standpoints
Don't even consider a warning shot
If the threat dissipates, do not shoot, period


I could go on. I had not realized that I would have to be able to draw from concealment and fire in a couple of seconds. I had never considered what I would go through after using my weapon.

I've been spending a fair amount of effort trying to find out what else there is that I need to know. That includes the laws in states in which I may travel.

I strongly recommend that anyone owning a gun spend some time on these things before a situation arises that may require its use.

mljdeckard
December 7, 2008, 07:29 PM
Absolutely. Even to the point of taking a few criminal law classes from your local community college. My criminal justice program is taught by prosecutors and judges, they taught me a LOT about precedent and practical application of law. Just for example, I took classes in arrest, search, and seizure law, professional responsibility, and criminal law, for a combined total of 135 hours of instruction. By way of comparison, it is feasible that there are Level-I certified police officers walking around out there with a grand total of 8 hours of instruction in the same areas. It's just like weapon training, you can never know enough.

Explorer1
December 7, 2008, 10:55 PM
The laws make TOTAL sense! The fact is the thugs have NO business doing what is getting them killed. When seconds count law enforcement is only minutes away - and hampered by being overworked, understaffed, and regulated beyond belief.
The purpose of these laws is NOT to punish those who you refer to as stealing a pencil but those who are threatening the well-being of someone who was minding their own business and bothering no one.
A home owner should NOT be afraid of defending themselves or their family or going broke defending themselves if they do.

gunnie
December 8, 2008, 10:40 AM
ANYONE, castle state, CCW state, ANY state, who owns a firearm that can/will be used for self defence owes it to themselves, and their family to read Massad Ayoob's book, "In The Gravest Extreme".

should be mandatory for firearms purchasers , IMO.

gunnie

Ala Dan
December 8, 2008, 10:53 AM
Only if you fear that your
life, or the life of a loved one is in emminent danger are you covered under
the Castle Doctrine Act. Yes, if someone forcibly enters your residence,
his/her intentions are unknown; and most likely they are there to cause
you or a loved one physical bodily harm. Therefore, the Castle Doctrine
Act would supercede any existing laws entitled "Use Of Deadly Physical
Force". The same would hold true if a potential perp of the car-jacker
type approached your vechile, while you are stopped at a traffic light*.

FootNote- you can't shoot an unarmed individual approaching your
vechile too ask for directions; but while paying attention to detail of
his/her behavorial mood, you see that they are armed [say with a
tire iron] then YES you can blow them away under the Castle Doctrine
Act.

Kleanbore
December 8, 2008, 12:12 PM
From Ala Dan: you can't shoot an unarmed individual approaching your vechile too ask for directions; but while paying attention to detail of
his/her behavorial mood, you see that they are armed [say with a
tire iron] then YES you can blow them away under the Castle Doctrine
Act.

NOT WHERE I LIVE!

benEzra
December 8, 2008, 01:06 PM
you can't shoot an unarmed individual approaching your vechile too ask for directions; but while paying attention to detail of
his/her behavorial mood, you see that they are armed [say with a
tire iron] then YES you can blow them away under the Castle Doctrine Act.
Not quite correct. States that extend the Castle Doctrine to vehicles (such as Florida) use the same standard as your home--illegal forced entry. If someone is walking up to your vehicle holding a tire iron threateningly, you may, depending on the circumstances, be able to use potentially lethal force in self-defense (matching the threatened lethal force with equivalent force), but that is not Castle Doctrine; it is ordinary self-defense law.

If the attacker breaks your window and reaches in trying to open the door, then the Castle Doctrine would apply in Florida, because he is attempting an illegal forced entry of your occupied vehicle.

Castle Doctrine and no-duty-to-retreat-in-public-places are not the same thing.

Kleanbore
December 10, 2008, 12:22 PM
get the book....
ANYONE, castle state, CCW state, ANY state, who owns a firearm that can/will be used for self defence owes it to themselves, and their family to read Massad Ayoob's book, "In The Gravest Extreme".

should be mandatory for firearms purchasers , IMO.

gunnie

My copy arrived yesterday. I'm well into it already. Excellent. I agree with gunnie's recommendation.

RPCVYemen
December 10, 2008, 01:14 PM
That I cannot detain a perp (without entering into the risky world of citizens arrest)

I think that there are a lot of of other risks with trying to detain a perp. You're standing there thinking, "He's in big trouble, I have a gun pointed at him!" The perp is laying there thinking, "That's a nice gun. I'd like to have that gun. I can take that fat old white man!"

In addition, it's not clear that you can actually shoot someone for disobeying your orders. If the perp decreased the distance to you without issuing any threats, or worse yet specifying no threat, "Hey man, can't we talk about this? I don't mean any harm. Peace.", can you shoot him? Once he's within arm's reach, your gun is his.

Think about it. What sense does it make to order a violent felon to stay in the room with you at gun point?

Watch when the pro's do it - watch videos of police detaining a citizen for something other than a traffic stop. The tension level is very, very high, and generally doesn't ease until the perp is in handcuffs in a car. In addition to all that, from what I see, officers strongly prefer two (or more) officers doing the handcuffing.

So the pro's - who have lots of training, and who detail people for a living - show an extreme level of tension and awareness when trying to detain a perp, and almost always do it with en mass. And law abiding Joe Citizen, who hasn't been in a fight since 7th grade is going to do it by himself?

The absolute best outcome for 99.999% of us non-LEOs is that the perp runs away.

Mike

Frank Ettin
December 10, 2008, 02:54 PM
...I think that there are a lot of of other risks with trying to detain a perp. You're standing there thinking, "He's in big trouble, I have a gun pointed at him!" The perp is laying there thinking, "That's a nice gun. I'd like to have that gun. I can take that fat old white man!"...
Absolutely correct. Massad Ayoob makes the point in his class that the criminal is not afraid of the gun. The criminal may be afraid of the person who he is convinced truly has the resolve to use the gun. If you point a gun at a criminal, you must convince him, by your manner, bearing and tone of voice (if you speak) that without a doubt you will in fact shoot him. And do some soul searching here; because if you really doubt that you have the resolve to shoot a person, it may be impossible to convince a criminal that you will shoot him.

Other instructors have said that the gun is not the weapon. You/your mind is the weapon. The gun is merely a tool.

...The absolute best outcome for 99.999% of us non-LEOs is that the perp runs away....
You bet!

Kleanbore
December 10, 2008, 08:43 PM
From RPCVYemen:

In addition, it's not clear that you can actually shoot someone for disobeying your orders.

Should he choose to flee, you may not use deadly force except under certain rare circumstances. Fiddletown has listed those on this or another forum. This is covered in a SCOTUS ruling (Garner v. Tennessee).

Think about it. What sense does it make to order a violent felon to stay in the room with you at gun point?

None! Why would he stay?

So the pro's - who have lots of training, and who detain people for a living - show an extreme level of tension and awareness when trying to detain a perp, and almost always do it with en mass. And law abiding Joe Citizen, who hasn't been in a fight since 7th grade is going to do it by himself?

Beautifully put!

The absolute best outcome for 99.999% of us non-LEOs is that the perp runs away.

+1!

Superlite27
December 11, 2008, 03:23 PM
The type of law is different in many states so I can't specifically say this is the same for all Castle Doctrine laws, but the actual doctrine is not aimed at the person who is involved. Castle Doctrine in Missouri merely changes the BURDEN.

Instead of shooting a trespasser, getting arrested, and the HAVING TO PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE, Missouri Castle Doctrine merely moves the burden of proof onto the prosecutor. Without Castle Doctrine you had to prove your innocence. With Castle Doctrine, the prosecutor now has to prove YOU DIDN'T DEFEND YOURSELF. Very hard to do when a ski-mask wearing prior felon with a crowbar is lying in your livingroom.

Before Castle Doctrine, the burden was ON YOU to prove you acted correctly. After Castle Doctrine, the burden is ON THE STATE to prove you didn't.

EXACTLY where the burden needs to lie. Before, you would be automatically arrested. It was up to you and your attorney to prove your innocence. NOW, a prosecutor might have to think about arresting you until he can make his case. If you are TRULY innocent until proven guilty, this is as it should be.

rbernie
December 11, 2008, 04:40 PM
The absolute best outcome for 99.999% of us non-LEOs is that the perp runs awayActually, probably not. That simply means that he/she will move on to predate upon somebody else. No society or community can thrive when internal predators are unaddressed. In terms of that which is best for the health of the community, the continuum of desired outcomes probably looks something like this:

People stop predating upon each other altogether
People that predate upon others are apprehended in the act of Being Bad People and submissively removed from the community
People that predate upon others are apprehended in the act of Being Bad People and injured/killed in the act of forcing their submission, upon which they/their corpse is removed from the community
People that predate upon others are allowed to flee when confronted and move on to find an easier target

Kleanbore
December 12, 2008, 11:34 AM
From rbernie:In terms of that which is best for the health of the community, the continuum of desired outcomes probably looks something like this:
People stop predating upon each other altogether
People that predate upon others are apprehended in the act of Being Bad People and submissively removed from the community
People that predate upon others are apprehended in the act of Being Bad People and injured/killed in the act of forcing their submission, upon which they/their corpse is removed from the community
People that predate upon others are allowed to flee when confronted and move on to find an easier target

In terms of what is best for the resident and his family, the continuum of desired outcomes probably looks like this:

The intruder leaves and may or may not be apprehended later
The resident attemps a citizen's arrest, and the intruder sues for false arrest or assault or both
Same situation, and the resident is charged with kidnapping
Same as 2, and the situation results in an out of court settlement or the plaintiff wins
The resident is convicted of criminal action; insurance does not pay civil damages
In the attempt to restrain the intruder, the intruder is killed or severely injured, and consequences range upward to a murder conviction
In attempting to restrain one or more intruders, the resident is overcome, disarmed, and injured or killed
Same, except the intruder turns the gun on the resident's family

ChCx2744
June 6, 2009, 11:04 PM
Kleanbore said:
That contradicts this from a Georgia law firm:


Quote:
If you enter any of these places without the owner's authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft in that place, you've committed the crime of Burglary.

If you simply enter someone's house without their authority and you did not commit a theft or felony, at worst you are guilty of criminal trespass, which is a misdemeanor.


http://www.georgiadefenders.com/theft.burglary.htm


Fact: I do not know what a perp is THINKING when they enter my home. How am I supposed to read someone's mind? Am I Mr. Cleo?
Fact: If someone is in my home WITHOUT my permission, there is no legal justification for it and they are wrong, period. I will FULLY believe my life is in jeopardy given the LONE fact that someone is in my home WITHOUT my permission.

Oh and by the way, YOU have been slightly fooled by the link you provided. Criminal Trespass is not literally defined as "Illegally entering without permission," Criminal Trespass is also used to determine property damage and at what point the cost of damage is a misdemeanor or felony. There are different degrees to criminal trespass (Criminal Trespass [damage < $500 in the state of Georgia], Criminal damage to property 1st degree, 2nd degree, Burglary) and any of these charges can be combined; I.E. Criminal Trespass can be added onto burglary if damage cost goes with the crime, etc. I don't know where you are from, but I live in Georgia and the laws here probably are not the same as the laws in your state. State Law is still Law, and federal law does not constitute everything.

True, you must have situational awareness of what is going on and the nature of what is going on; however, 99% of the time someone is in your residence without your permission is going to be intentional, whether you want to believe that in your little world or not. The remaining 1% MAY WELL BE some kid who went to the wrong house after curfew, an elderly woman who accidentally went into the wrong apartment that was unlocked (my grandmother did this once), or some maintenance guy who went into the wrong house/apt. Either way, deadly force can be justified through articulation (given the nature of thier entrance/presence). You can debate all day and night justification for deadly force in the Castle Doctrine, but your "googling" and "opinions" will not change what has already happened and what has been prooven.

Frank Ettin
June 7, 2009, 12:57 AM
...If someone is in my home WITHOUT my permission, there is no legal justification for it and they are wrong, period. I will FULLY believe my life is in jeopardy given the LONE fact that someone is in my home WITHOUT my permission.You might. But will the DA, grand jury and/or trial jury agree? Good luck and have a nice day.

The point is that things are often not that cut and dried. It all depends on exactly what is going on. The devil is in the details, and we must learn to exercise good judgment.

pbearperry
June 7, 2009, 01:02 AM
Hey Nachosgrande,
If you think someone would break into your home while you are there to steal a pencil,you must either be a complete moron,or on some kind of liberal kool aid drug.Which is it.lol

Frank Ettin
June 7, 2009, 01:31 AM
Hey Nachosgrande,
If you think someone would break into your home while you are there to steal a pencil,you must either be a complete moron,or on some kind of liberal kool aid drug.Which is it.lolIf you're referring to me, the answer is that I'm neither.

I am a lawyer retired after more than 30 years practice who has trained with Bennie Cooley , at Gunsite with Jeff Cooper, with Louis Awerbuck and with Massad Ayoob, among others. I'm also an NRA certified instructor in Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home and Shotgun.

And if name calling is the best that you can do, I doubt that you can have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion.

EDIT: pbearperrry, I see that the OP was Nachogrande -- I guess this thread has been going on for so long, I lost track of who started this thing. Looking back over things, I agree that Nachgrande is way off base, but that's no reason to call him names.

shiftyer1
June 7, 2009, 03:25 AM
In some cultures past and possibly present people ABSOLUTELY would not enter your home if a stone was out front of the door. It was an unthinkable act. Some of these homes doors were secured with string or even not at all. What happened to commen sense. Entering ones home uninvited is a very violating experience for the homeowner. I've discussed some of the issues my moms been havin at home in this respect here a few times. Anyway why should one have to question why someone is in your house? Someone is in your kitchen, living room etc. this is a terrible time to discuss the weather, current events and oh, by the way whats your name and why is that knive in your hand?

I cannot believe any home defense laws actually effect the actions of home owners to much extent.

This is a law that actually protects normal people when they react to someone protecting whats thiers, be it family or property.

I really don't understand why concepts like these are so hard to understand.

People tryin to hurt you are not people too they are predators!!!!!!

Frank Ettin
June 7, 2009, 07:33 AM
....I cannot believe any home defense laws actually effect the actions of home owners to much extent. ...Nonetheless, they are what they are. So if you want you and your family to survive the episode, and you to survive any legal aftermath, it would be good to know and understand the laws and exercise appropriate judgment.

An intruder whose actions truly constitute a threat must be dealt with decisively, but an intruder who has clearly broken off his activity and is on his way out may present a different question. You're going to have to decide what to do, and decide quickly, based on what is actually happening. You're going to then have to explain you decision and live with it.

skoro
June 7, 2009, 11:50 PM
Therefore, in the eyes of my state, MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = DEATH PENALTY. Could someone please explain the logic in this?

To ease your conscience, keep a jar of dimes by the door so the pencil thieves can take a handful and go to the corner store and buy all they want.

Problem solved! :)

bytesize
June 8, 2009, 12:23 PM
I was questioning one of my HCP instructors (a very experienced LEO) on how to handle a potential life threatening situation. After listening patiently, he interrupted me in mid-sentence and said: “You are being too analytical. You will absolutely know when someone is trying to kill you”.
An intruder in your home for any reason is not your friend. If discovered and they don’t immediately flee the premises, you can expect things to go badly for at least one of you. The Castle Doctrine is a good and just law meant to protect you from criminal prosecution and civil suits if you survive. It won’t protect you from anything if you are dead.

Hungry Seagull
June 8, 2009, 01:50 PM
Aha. Protect you from Prosecution ONLY if you were within the LAW itself IF you shot someone inside your home.

They will decide and examine to consider charges against YOU the homeowner/shooter. If they decline to file charges then NO one else can sue or charge you for that shoot. (Successful home defense)

Should you not know the law of home defense in your area and make a wrong decision, YOU stand to be taken to JAIL and Charged and later SUED civilly.

Dont even think for a second the bad guy you shot and stopped that everything is ok. You will face the possibility of arson, drive by shoots and more crimes against your property from the Bad guy's family and friends once everything is reported in the media the following days after your successful shoot in defense of life and home.

bytesize
June 9, 2009, 01:11 PM
Aha. Me thinks you are being too analytical. Simple points are: 1 - Intruder in your home and won't leave, you better figure out out a way to survive. 2 - If you don't have ability or will to complete #1 then anything that comes after is a secondary concern. Castle doctrine is a nice tool to help you out with the secondary stuff if you do complete #1. Life ain't easy is it?

Hungry Seagull
June 9, 2009, 01:21 PM
I concede. Those Aha's get reduced to the lowest common denominator very quickly when death is nigh.

DHJenkins
June 9, 2009, 01:58 PM
Under Texas castle doctrine laws, I have the right to use deadly force to protect my life and my property while in my home, car or any place 'under my control'.

In fact, I believe we're one of the only states that allows the use of deadly force to stop someone from running off with our property.

As far as the OP's quote "MURDER = 15 YEARS and MINOR THEFT = DEATH PENALTY", I'm fine with it; know why? Because all you have to do is not break the law.

Could be stealing a pencil, could want to slit my throat in my sleep; I won't be sitting down with the person to discuss their motives.

Blackbeard
June 9, 2009, 02:32 PM
Wish I'd found this thread earlier.

Nachos - the problem you're having is confusing self-defense with punishment. When we shoot in self-defense, we are not meting out punishment, we are protecting ourselves, and in this case, our property. Death may be the result of our defensive actions, but that is the risk that a burglar takes.

Now, if I come across some idiot in my house with my pencil in his hand and running for the door, I'm probably not going to shoot him. But, I catch him on the way in, I don't know what his motives are, and I have to assume the worst. If you want to take the time and ask him if he only wants a pencil and then direct him to the pencil drawer, that's your option. I wouldn't take the risk.

P.S. You could just keep a jar of free pencils on your front porch, so you know that any intruders are after something more.

bigione
June 9, 2009, 03:31 PM
Nachos, I have had two home invasions and one prowler attemping to breakin. I never felt the need to pull the trigger. Each situation is different. For me one was an individual on drugs but controlable. One a drunk neighbor looking for help after driving into ditch. The third a mental case. I was armed and ready and believe I could have shot, but the feeling against taking a life was surely there. As I've said on another thread, you must prepare your mind set as much or more than your weapon. If you can't shot to defend self or family, than prepare sone other way. Don't be a willing victim.

Route2
June 9, 2009, 05:48 PM
I though that this was interesting:

A law that God gave to ancient Israel is eerily similar to this Castle Law.—Exodus 22:2, 3 “2 If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder. 3 But if it happens in daylight, the one who killed the thief is guilty of murder.” New Living Translation

If a thief was caught in the daytime and was killed, the assailant would be charged with murder. This was evidently because thievery did not carry the death penalty and the thief could have been identified and brought to justice. However, if an intruder was fatally struck at night, the householder could be exonerated because it would be difficult for him to see what the intruder was doing and to ascertain the intentions of the intruder. The householder could reasonably conclude that his family was under threat of harm and take defensive action.

I dunno, I thought it was interesting and was still on point.

SHvar
June 10, 2009, 12:42 AM
If someone is risking getting killed to break into your house, they obviously dont care about your safety or their own, this tells me they would harm or kill you without a second thought, so this is why you have the option to defend yourself.
be glad you have that option if you need it, protect that right. Its the best deterent to crime, nothing else bothers them or prevents it but the criminals fear.

Hungry Seagull
June 10, 2009, 01:16 AM
We are glad to have that right that is protected and upheld by the state as a public benefit and safety to be absolute and good.

Break into someone's house is putting your life on the line.

I counted about ... 20+ home invasions during the last 14 months or so that I could see in the media and figure two were confused and obeyed commands to stay where they were at gunpoint (Drugs.. wrong house etc)

About 14 shot dead, they either died in the home or staggered back outside to die in the yard or street.

The rest were inconclusive shootouts that wounded one or both sides and sometimes police collects GSW after thier discharge from hospital.

On the CCW shoots, recently we had a dentist shoot a robber in a walmart hit him and the other two that were with him in getaway vehicle were all captured.

There were 4 felony police chases that I know of with bad guy fleeing. All ended in death by gunfire to the perp.

Looking at the county hospital, the ER fills with stabbings and domestics every night in small numbers. Not a great place to be.

I think there are about 65 thousand conceal carries now with about 500-1000 new permits issued each month, probably two times that number of gunowners with shotguns and rifles in our state.

Each morning brings news of yet another murder in Little Rock by criminals not bound by the laws. But the numbers are low compared to what I was used to in the larger NE cities back where I was raised.

The castle doctrine works in our state, tested, proven over and over again.

HOWEVER....

One or two cases of mistaken addresses by LEO's pulling NO knock raids lead to trouble when people inside those homes either resisted by gun fire or were total sheep caught completely unaware because they have absolutely NO connections to crime or drugs.

It is my belief that the Police made things right to those who were served by mistake but not always.

It is also my belief that most of my neighbors are all armed and shoot regularly and so far have had only two killings within ten miles of Searcy in the last... 30 years. One was a drugstore homicide in the 70's and another was a young teen who refused to drop his gun and was killed on the side of the road.

The rest are Marines or Soldiers brought back from current wars since 9-11 to be buried.

And of course there is the usual batch of drug houses, meth labs and rolling vehiculer traffic for commerce of illegal drugs and also vans that contain mobile labs. Most of which have firearms or dogs.

There are still many people who are not the kind to do crime, own weapons and live a peaceful life going to work, raising a family etc and never think for one day that they will be owners of guns.

Since the election, that has changed. I think one night I counted about 200 in a gander store, 150 in thompson and several smaller shops a few dozen total, half looking and the other half buying.

That activity has tapered off and has become steady.

Remington Arms in Lonoke Arkansas is flat out 24/7 working as hard as they can cranking out guns and ammo as the birdies tell me.

There are about a dozen conceal carry classes availible in my state each month. Each class probably holds 5 to 50 students at a time. Most of which will go on to apply for license to carry. Some will retain home defense only and not carry.

On the weekends it's almost impossible to get a slot at the range without some sort of wait time for a lane.

Finally but not last.

There are Military Installations in this state in addition to weapons production for Defense, those personel come and go with thier own weapons as they go about thier lives and work. It is safe to say that things are looking pretty durn good these days.

ChaoSS
June 10, 2009, 01:36 AM
Nachos, I have had two home invasions and one prowler attemping to breakin. I never felt the need to pull the trigger. Each situation is different. For me one was an individual on drugs but controlable. One a drunk neighbor looking for help after driving into ditch. The third a mental case. I was armed and ready and believe I could have shot, but the feeling against taking a life was surely there. As I've said on another thread, you must prepare your mind set as much or more than your weapon. If you can't shot to defend self or family, than prepare sone other way. Don't be a willing victim.
When I lived in CO, the law said that it was legal to use lethal force if someone was illegally in your house and you had reason to believe they intended to commit another crime. Thus, if they are breaking in and robbing you, or breaking in to rape your wife, or anything else, lethal force is acceptable. However, if a drunk wanders into the wrong house and passes out on your couch, and you wake up and find him there passed out, you can't simply kill him for the heck of it. (sounds kind of like the decisions where you decided not to kill someone.)

Route2
June 10, 2009, 11:47 AM
I am not sure if this law is writen just for self-defense. I lifted this from another post in another string.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

This law appears to open the door beyond just a defensive effort to neutralize an attack and protect the homeowner if the assailant is killed. The homeowner needs only to be able to show that he REASONABLY BELIEVES whatever it is that he is believing. After that, it becomes kind of scary. Scenario: Your car breaks down in the rurals (cell phone gets no bars), you see a farm house and walk to it for help. You walk up the driveway, dogs barking and wagging their tails, you knock on the well lit porch door and an old fart throws open the door and screams, “You came to kill me!” And blasts you to pieces. I think he could successfully argue this law in court.

Husaberg Man
June 10, 2009, 12:43 PM
(I am not a lawyer but I pretend to be one on the internet)

-----------------------------------

I am not sure if this law is writen just for self-defense. I lifted this from another post in another string.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

This law appears to open the door beyond just a defensive effort to neutralize an attack and protect the homeowner if the assailant is killed. The homeowner needs only to be able to show that he REASONABLY BELIEVES whatever it is that he is believing. After that, it becomes kind of scary. Scenario: Your car breaks down in the rurals (cell phone gets no bars), you see a farm house and walk to it for help. You walk up the driveway, dogs barking and wagging their tails, you knock on the well lit porch door and an old fart throws open the door and screams, “You came to kill me!” And blasts you to pieces. I think he could successfully argue this law in court.

You've posted the Texas Law. I'm not a lawyer either, but have talked about this subject with a family member who is an ass't DA in Texas.

Regarding your scenario, that would NOT (imo) pass the "reasonable person" argument. In other words, no reasonable person would consider it a threat for a guy to knock on the door. Even if it were reasonable to consider that a threat, it would then be unreasonable to literally open the door to the threat. Merely being on your property does not make someone a threat, and knocking on the door is not an indication that he is there to harm people or steal property.

If a person tried to argue that a threat existed, and assuming there were no arguments on the underllying facts, then that person is either lying (and guilty) or mentally defective. Either way, that homeowner would not walk out of court a free man.

Frank Ettin
June 10, 2009, 12:57 PM
...The homeowner needs only to be able to show that he REASONABLY BELIEVES whatever it is that he is believing....But thejury doesn't have to believe the homeowner's claim. In your hypothetical, it's highly likely that the jury wouldn't buy it, and your homeowner will be going to prison.

Route2
June 10, 2009, 01:04 PM
Actually, that is reassuring. So, just so I am clear. I know that hypothetical’s are not cool, so this will be my last. Scenario: Your car runs out of gas at night in the rurals (cell phone gets no bars), you see a farm house and walk to it for help. No lights are on in the house and there doesn’t appear to be anyone home. You see a tractor parked out near the barn. You find a length of rubber hose and a plastic milk jug and siphon a gallon of gas (unlawful act) while the dogs are barking and wagging their tails. The lights come on in the house, old fart throws open the door and yells, “come back with the gas, thief” and opens fire. Does this pass the "reasonable person" argument? Just would like to know about where the line is drawn.

DHJenkins
June 10, 2009, 01:06 PM
I'm sure there's hundreds, if not thousands of hypothetical scenarios where something bad could happen to someone innocent.

The bottom line is, however, we're not going to give up our rights to protect ourselves and our property because someone, somewhere might make a mistake one day.

DHJenkins
June 10, 2009, 01:08 PM
Your car runs out of gas at night in the rurals (cell phone gets no bars), you see a farm house and walk to it for help. No lights are on in the house and there doesn’t appear to be anyone home. You see a tractor parked out near the barn. You find a length of rubber hose and a plastic milk jug and siphon a gallon of gas (unlawful act) while the dogs are barking and wagging their tails. The lights come on in the house, old fart throws open the door and yells, “come back with the gas, thief” and opens fire. Does this pass the "reasonable person" argument? Just would like to know about where the line is drawn.

IMO, yes. The person is a thief and the use of deadly force would be justified under the criminal mischief at nighttime sections and the recovery of property sections.

Besides, tractors usually run on diesel.

Here's the line - don't steal in TX.

EDIT - besides, you as the homeowner have no idea if he's stealing fuel for his car or to set your property on fire.

Route2
June 10, 2009, 02:04 PM
It was an old “M” model International Farmall. Seriously, thanks for the insight. And you are right, tons of hypothetical situations.

It seems so simple, if they don’t break into my house, then no problem. If they do, then they are dead, straightforward, Black and White.

But things are never simple. There is the law and then the interpretation of the law.

My 2 cents: At best, I consider this law a safety net, a legal argument that could be successfully argued in a court of law. Like all nets, there are holes in it. Anytime you go to court it is a crap shoot. Unsympathetic jury; indifferent defense; aggressive, politically motivated prosecution; unfavorable judge; harmful eyewitness who says that it didn’t happen at all like you said; neighbors who don’t like you and take this as an opportunity to get you out of their neighborhood (oh yeah, their out there).

And what about the person that was killed, will their friends and family be happy about it? When we get off, might they be the ones screaming about the injustice of it all? Being freed on criminal charges does not mean we will not lose in a civil trial.

And maybe those friends and family will be looking for payback? In their eyes, WE are the criminal? We may be looking over our shoulder for the rest of our lives, and so may our family.

Then there is the court of public opinion. Co-workers or clients who don’t trust us because they “don’t know when we will go off or something.” Employers who don’t want the notoriety of a “Killer” working for them or whose daughter tells him that we “scare her.”

This is just me, no judgment of others intended here. I want to keep all my options open. I don’t want someone else to paint me in a corner by their rash actions. If it comes to it, I want to look the jurors in the eyes and say that my actions were defensive only. That I did not intent to kill (or punish) my attacker but only tried to neutralize the attack. I am sorry life was lost, but it was not intentional.

Rellian
June 10, 2009, 02:21 PM
Let me get this straight.....
So as I understand it, NachosLibre was trolling about Castle Doctrine. (The truth is it varies from state to state within the states that have that particular political ideology. A nice broad question that has no definitive answer). He (or possibly she you never know) attempts to illustrate the insanity of the law by castigating it as punishment rather than response, and uses someone holding a pencil when shot as a way to illustrate the disproportionate punishment to crime, ignoring the fact that the erstwhile example has already bypassed (most likely forceably) locks and other security measures. (hey they didn't say they forgot to lock the door). And then finally equates the momentary decisions of the robbery victim to a judge and jury, ignoring the fact that 'ignorance of the law' cuts both ways, and that the perp's actions carry consequences sometimes beyond his/her control also. Just because the dumb@$$ who broke into my house doesn't know I have the right to shoot him is not a legal safeguard to keep me from shooting him any more than my not knowing a particular state has death penalties is a legal safeguard from my own execution should I commit a capital crime in that state.

Do I have this correctly?

Leanwolf
June 10, 2009, 03:43 PM
RELLIAN - "Do I have this correctly?"


Yep.

L.W.

DHJenkins
June 10, 2009, 04:57 PM
And what about the person that was killed, will their friends and family be happy about it? When we get off, might they be the ones screaming about the injustice of it all? Being freed on criminal charges does not mean we will not lose in a civil trial.

TX CD laws include shielding from civil litigation as well.

Like everything else, it's a matter of where you live. Where you're from, you might be seen as a pariah if you shot someone in self defense. Down here you darn near get a parade.

There's always the chance of payback, but there's also a chance you could have a heart attack while reading this.

When in a 'situation' there is ONLY the 'here and now'. Consideration in the place of action could cost you your life.

Besides, you can always just move afterwards.

Route2
June 10, 2009, 05:13 PM
TX CD laws include shielding from civil litigation as well.


When in a 'situation' there is ONLY the 'here and now'. you can always just move afterwards.
Agreed. And talk all we want, we will not know what we will REALLY do until the situations arises.

Husaberg Man
June 10, 2009, 05:57 PM
The lights come on in the house, old fart throws open the door and yells, “come back with the gas, thief” and opens fire. Speaking only for Texas, we can use force to stop a threat. In your hypothetical, there's no pause between the homeowner's order to "come back with the gas" and opening fire.

If I order you to stop and you comply, that the imminent threat is gone and my right to use deadly force is OVER. That's not to say that I'm lowering my weapon, because the cessation of the threat could be temporary.

DawgsFan_07
June 10, 2009, 09:15 PM
I was driving to the grocery and was goinging through the bad part of town one time. I had the window part way rolled down, and a guy came up and asked for a ride to his apartment. I asked where it was and it was not at all on the way I was going so I told him I couldn't help him. He said ok, then went to the passenger side and started to open it (I know, I should've locked the doors.) I put my hand on my gun (in the console between the seats) and said very firmly and loudly: Get out of my car! It seemed to me that he was either not all there or on something, but not aggressive or hostile. Also, I didn't think he was trying to carjack me, at least at that time as he was going to the passenger side. He started arguing "Come on man, give me a hand here" and I just repeated - Get off my car, go away! After that he left.

One time, I had a feeling that something wasn't right, got my gun from the drawer and looked around the house. I heard a scratching noise from the front and could see the front door knob wiggling. I called the police, and went to a corner of the living room in the dark where I had a good shot at the door. I planned to shoot if the guy got through the lock and came in. The police arrived, but the guy ran off and they didn't catch him.

If you enjoyed reading about "Castle Doctrine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!